Does that mean we are stuck with those ugly block buildings facing the station.

This refers to the station arcade entrance to the station.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2015:11:18:19:08:58 by richard tudor.

The elegant art deco buildings which have no concrete blocks (go take a look) will be demolished despite being protected frontages.

You may think they are elegant I don't.

They are not block buildings (go look).

They are an important part of England's architectural heritage.

They may even be a sole survivor.

You will have read the Historic England contribution which is even dumber than that written for Railway Rise.

John K

Wrong thread



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2015:11:18:19:07:08 by richard tudor.

EDHistory, are you saying you don't think the passage can be widened? The passage itself already exists.

No, I'm saying, although I may be wrong, that on any refurbishment/rebuild, the entire ground floor, as bounded by the red line, can only be used for A1 Retail.

John K

The Valuation Office Agency entry doesn't help very much.

[www.2010.voa.gov.uk]

[www.2010.voa.gov.uk]

Oh, that's fine. They aren't planning to change the use to anything other than A1 retail on the ground floor as far as I'm aware. They are just splitting the retail into smaller units.

100

edhistory Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's an extract from one of the Protected
> Frontages maps.
>

...
>
> 133 Rye Lane is fully a "Protected Frontage" (as
> is Station Arcade). I don't think the red line can
> be gerrymandered to provide a Bussey Building
> passage.
>
> John K

The planning application makes mention of an "easement" between Rye Lane and the Bussey Building. Is this the same as a right of way? Would this predate any elevations that fall within a Protected Frontage designation?

Details of an easement should be found in the title deed., but this is not always the case.

To find out will cost £3.

Seriously ? Do you really imagine that the developers have spent what I cannot believe would be less than a couple of million quid on a building and all the associated development plans without having gone through the legal fine print? Good luck to you John but I think you just wasted £3.

In any event, the developers seem more than happy to maintain (and enhance) the passageway between Rye Lane and Bussey/Copeland and that passageway looks to be integral to the building, so I would suggest that it has always been there.

It happens. And yes, developers' lawyers do read the small print. Some are chancers too, but there is no evidence of this here.

You should not jump to conclusions. I did not spend £3, but I might be tempted to do so for 135 Rye Lane.

Does anyone know what happened to the putative Grade II listing application for the Khan's building?

You can suggest something about the "passageway" or you could obtain the evidence from the Title Plan for £3. I prefer evidence to unfounded suggestions. Did you read how the "passageway" is classified by the Valuation Office Agency?

John L

Whoops. That should read John K



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2015:11:19:09:18:14 by edhistory.

Sorry so are you saying you think the current passageway is illegal and will have to be closed off?

Why do you think this would involve gerrymandering? The passage to the Bussey Building (Bussey Alley) is a covered arcade. What exactly would you expect to see on the red outline to indicate its existence within the frontage?

Looking at that extract quickly none of the arches or arcades in the area are delineated any differently than solid buildings so why do you think this treatment is unusual as it concerns 133 Rye Lane?

The map doesn't immediately indicate anything about the legitimacy of the arcade one way or another. That's why I'm finding this conversation a bit hard to follow. Apologies if I'm being thick! I'm just snatching quick looks at work.

ETA: The post I was responding to seems to have disappeared... I should have quoted it



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was 2015:11:19:12:44:21 by LondonMix.

ed_pete Wrote:
> In any event, the developers seem more than happy
> to maintain (and enhance) the passageway between
> Rye Lane and Bussey/Copeland and that passageway
> looks to be integral to the building, so I would
> suggest that it has always been there.

Yes it has been there since it was built in 1908, and there are rights of way through the passageway to the Copeland Park site which includes the Bussey Building, and 133 Rye Lane has rights of way through Copeland Park. Copeland Park including the Bussey Building is in one private ownership, and 133 Rye Lane building is in another private ownership. Khan's Bargain store and Holdron's Arcade are also part of Copeland Park.

We know this because Peckham Vision grew out of the campaign in 2005-2009 to save, from demolition for a tram depot, the large 5-6 acre site which included all the Rye Lane frontage from the railway bridge to Bournemouth Road and then all of Copeland Park, including the Bussey Building, and everything beyond to Brayards Road and Consort Road. Peckham Vision has worked with the Copeland Park owners, and the CLF Art Café, for the last 10 years - a constructive working relationship between a local community action group and a major property owner, and also with the CLF a key part of the evolving cultural hub.

Peckham Vision's shop in Holdron's Arcade 135a Rye Lane is the property owner's acknowledgment of the work the community through Peckham Vision has contributed to enabling Copeland Park as a cultural quarter to evolve. The shop is open on Tuesday and Saturday afternoons between 2-4pm, and at other times ad hoc (we are dependent on volunteers - if you would like to help let us know!). You can always see the information displays every day. Please drop in to find out more about 133 Rye Lane, and also the other major developments and other changes in the town centre.

Some relevant links:
PV Facebook news about 133 Rye Lane –
* [www.facebook.com]
* [www.facebook.com]
* [www.facebook.com]
Peckham Vision - [www.peckhamvision.org]
Cross River Tram - [www.peckhamvision.org]
Tram Depot concerns - [www.peckhamvision.org]
Tram depot plans - [www.peckhamvision.org]

Eileen,

Three things:

Is there any evidence about the "right of way"?

Does the plan for 133 include a flying freehold over 135?

Who owns 135a Rye Lane?

John K

LondonMix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do you think this would involve gerrymandering?

Probably Using the same meaning as in Florida.

Adjusting boundaries for political or financial advantage.

Someone from Peckham Vision may be able to explain the "adjustment" to the Holly Grove Conservation Area that happened a few years ago.

John K

Eileen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes it has been there since it was built in 1908,
> and there are rights of way through the passageway
> to the Copeland Park site which includes the
> Bussey Building, and 133 Rye Lane has rights of
> way through Copeland Park.

From 1970 to 1992 (and perhaps later) the "Bussey Building" staff used the drive-way under 1-15 Bournemouth Road to go to and from work.

John K

edhistory Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eileen,
> Three things:
> Is there any evidence about the "right of way"?
>
yes the owners have all the documentation.

> Does the plan for 133 include a flying freehold
> over 135?
>
I have heard that expression but don't know any details.

> Who owns 135a Rye Lane?
>
Copeland Park are the owners as they are also of the building at 135 Rye Lane.

Thanks Eileen.

I guess we will not get to see whether there is a "right of way", or "easement", or an informal arrangement. Do you know anyone who has seen the documents or are the Peckham Vision People taking the existence of a "right of way" on trust?

Flying freeholds are not common in our area. Maybe the best known near you is the part of the East Dulwich Tavern over "Ralon".

Ownnership details as presented of the buildings do not seem to make sense. Only a "person" can own a property. Is "Copeland Park" a "legal person". If so, at least minimal details should be in the public domain.

Flying freeholds are not common in our area. Maybe the best known near you is the part of the East Dulwich Tavern over "Ralon".

There is a fair amount of misrepresentation going on. The most recent shown to me is the 17-13 November Time Out article written by Tristan Parker who interviewed Mickey Smith, here credited as "CLF creative director".

I hope your arm is now fully recovered.

Regards.

John K

135 Rye Lane is "owned" by RJK PROPERTIES LIMITED.

edhistory Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 135 Rye Lane is "owned" by RJK PROPERTIES LIMITED.

yes who trade as Copeland Park. Apologies for not being specific on this. For our current purposes they are all the same.

edhistory Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Eileen.
>
> I guess we will not get to see whether there is a
> "right of way", or "easement", or an informal
> arrangement. Do you know anyone who has seen the
> documents or are the Peckham Vision People taking
> the existence of a "right of way" on trust?
>
Yes we know the owners, have worked with them for 10 years, they have the papers and we have had no need to check them. Life is too short John. Why is it important in this case when no one is querying the ownership and rights of way?
>
> Ownnership details as presented of the buildings
> do not seem to make sense. Only a "person" can own
> a property. Is "Copeland Park" a "legal person".
> If so, at least minimal details should be in the
> public domain.
>
This is the trading name. You have identified the company name in yr other post.
>
> There is a fair amount of misrepresentation going
> on. The most recent shown to me is the 17-13
> November Time Out article written by Tristan
> Parker who interviewed Mickey Smith, here credited
> as "CLF creative director".
>
What do you see as misrepresentation?

> I hope your arm is now fully recovered.
>
Partially, thank you. It is a long haul.

Misrepresentation - I'd call it politics
i.e. Hinting that closure of the bussey is almost certain if development goes ahead.

But what did you expect - people will fight for their cause - and that gives leverage.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2015:11:23:12:29:51 by JohnL.

Update

Developers intend to respond on the 27th November (Friday)

[peckhampeculiar.tumblr.com]

Response came last night. Developers dropped their proposals for residential and extension of the building upwards and downwards, withdrew the planning application and declared they want to work with local businesses and community for the longer term non-residential future of the building. See here for more info: [www.facebook.com]

Vindication of community working together. Welcome to collaborative property developers...

As Eileen says - Application withdrawn

[peckhampeculiar.tumblr.com]

Alternatives (no housing) being considered.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2015:12:05:11:08:26 by JohnL.

First rule of business....keep it relevant